45 réponses à ce sujet

[Kevin Lynch]

Similar to DA2, "Inquisition" suggests that there are going to be at least two major paths through DA3, siding with the "inquisitors" or against them. If this is likely, do you think it better to have companions that are entirely neutral, joining your group whether you side one way or the other? Or would it be better to have opposition from joinable NPCs such that they will never join you and may actively oppose you if you make certain choices?

For my part, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I like being able to maintain a particular party make-up from the very beginning and hate having to switch out companions for various purposes or based on choices. On the other hand, I like that the companions have more personality when they have the option to disagree with you and oppose you; otherwise, they are just an extension of your main character and not autonomous in any way.

What's the general opinion out there?

[Edit] Adjusted the title a bit to remove the suggestion of "very different" paths.

Modifié par Kevin Lynch, 17 septembre 2012 - 04:24 .

[Vilegrim]

wait DA2 had different paths? I didn't notice....

[InfinitePaths]

Vilegrim wrote...

wait DA2 had different paths? I didn't notice....

Epic win

[Bekkael]

I hope there will be two very different paths, for replay enjoyment alone. The more divergence, the better.

[Forst1999]

I doubt it. So far it wasn't Bioware's style to make entirely different paths through a game. I'd guess we'll be part of the Inquisition and will be able to steer it into different directions.

[Lilaeth]

Being part of an Inquisition would be seriously against everything I believe in!

[ElitePinecone]

Lilaeth wrote...

Being part of an Inquisition would be seriously against everything I believe in!

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

[Kevin Lynch]

Forst1999 wrote...

I doubt it. So far it wasn't Bioware's style to make entirely different paths through a game. I'd guess we'll be part of the Inquisition and will be able to steer it into different directions.

I do mean that the paths will have you on either side, but I honestly don't expect what my post suggested: that there'd be two vastly different stories. More like the main quest may be different in some major points along the way but all the side work that is done has overlapping goals.

Not sure, but I agree it'd feel odd to be forced to be part of an inquisition. More likely, if only one path is available, it'd be to work against it; perhaps the inquisition deals with the Qunari, for instance.

[cowoline]

My first thought was; Oh Noes! The title migth as well suggest that we are part of an inquisition, that is to eliminate both mages and templars. We are going to be the new chantry puppets. Yay:sick:

But I hope we will be able to choose sides and that it will actually make difference. That was seriously missing in DA II.

Also want more noticable romances throughout the game, as in the opssite of;

LI "Are you alright, love?"
Canon ; stone face.

Other than that. Can't wait Bioware!<3

[Vilegrim]

Forst1999 wrote...

I doubt it. So far it wasn't Bioware's style to make entirely different paths through a game. I'd guess we'll be part of the Inquisition and will be able to steer it into different directions.

so time to wait for CDprojektRED's Cyberpunk 2020 and witcher 3.

[Dutchess]

Since I guess the player is going to be a member of the inquisition, I don't expect the choice will be to side for or against them (you can't side against the Wardens either in DAO). It's probably more siding with mages or templars or Chantry or elves or Qunari or whatever to get peace again in Thedas.

[Kevin Lynch]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

[Teddie Sage]

Lilaeth wrote...

Being part of an Inquisition would be seriously against everything I believe in!

Maybe you could be against the Inquisition, in-game? Who knows? Let's all wait for more information, shall we?

[Wulfram]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

Well, Bioware aren't using the word without knowing it's baggage.  The expectations the term creates must be deliberate, even if the ultimate intent is to subvert them.

[Lilaeth]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Lilaeth wrote...

Being part of an Inquisition would be seriously against everything I believe in!

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

I was only joking, but reading your post, I seriously doubt if a new DA inquisition will not have some baggage from its past.  Why would you ignore what 'inquisition' has come to mean in DA lore?  Presumably we'll be in a world still reeling from/dealing with the Mage rebellion - in which case I'd suggest that the Inquisition will not be all fluffy bunnies and rainbows?  No matter - as long as the interactions between characters is more akin to that in DA:O.  I lose interest when all I have to do is run around and kill.

[ElitePinecone]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

(spoilers, I guess)
If we consider the information that leaked out a little while ago, it does look like DA3's Inquisition is in fact a new group dedicated to finding the cause of one particular *thing*, it has no set ideological foundation as either anti-mage or pro-Templar. 

This does open all sorts of great gameplay opportunities (in terms of siding with certain factions in conflicts, or influencing events with the power of an unaligned group), but I fear - like this thread shows - that people will jump to the conclusion that we're part of a Chantry inquisition. At least, until Bioware clarifies it. 

[Darth Death]

Why only two? Why not three or even four for that matter?

[brushyourteeth]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Kevin Lynch wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

(spoilers, I guess)
If we consider the information that leaked out a little while ago, it does look like DA3's Inquisition is in fact a new group dedicated to finding the cause of one particular *thing*, it has no set ideological foundation as either anti-mage or pro-Templar. 

This does open all sorts of great gameplay opportunities (in terms of siding with certain factions in conflicts, or influencing events with the power of an unaligned group), but I fear - like this thread shows - that people will jump to the conclusion that we're part of a Chantry inquisition. At least, until Bioware clarifies it. 

This level of intelligence should be rewarded.

Cookies for everyone!! 

[LadyWench]

Wulfram wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

An inquisition, literally, investigates things. It inquires as to the substance of things, and the reasons behind them. 

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

Well, Bioware aren't using the word without knowing it's baggage.  The expectations the term creates must be deliberate, even if the ultimate intent is to subvert them.

^Touche!
Seriously, though, I trust that the game will not force your in-game choices, but your character's pregame lore is up for grabs. We already know from the series that people are "given" or "taken" by the Chantry all the time and raised toward a predetermined fate that, more often than not, they can rebel against in some way if they wish. I see no reason why it couldn't be something similar here.

But, as others have pointed out, we simply do not yet have enough details. So I will wait and see.

[Cimeas]

You are the head of the inquisition.

You CANNOT therefore, go against it.

[SnakeStrike8]

Too much to hope for.
I'm trying my best, but I cannot imagine Bioware doing anything other than slapping cheesy moralizing onto the complex subject of what we ought to do with mages with absurdly exaggerated strawman templars and nutjob mages and always-right Gary Stu Qunari walking in and cocking up everything.

[BubbleDncr]

I would think as the Inquisitor, you would end up playing as either a chantry/templar supporter, or a mage sympathetic. And while that may be a fair amount of story, the real plot is trying to figure out whose manipulating events. So, I see the "picking a side" more being, "what groups do you make alliances with to help you find out who the real bad guy is?"

[Malsumis]

Vilegrim wrote...

wait DA2 had different paths? I didn't notice....

QFT